Speeches

Mr President, Europe needs a new impetus for research, innovation and production in critical sectors. The Net Zero Regulation is a good response to this need. I am pleased that we managed to place biomaterials and technologies among the net-zero industries. Thank you, in particular, to the chairman of the committee. However, the implementation of the Regulation is now in a hurry. In many Member States, there is a huge amount of unused RRF funds. STEP offers a flexible opportunity now to direct these funds to precisely these net-zero sectors. A few words about academics: the Commission should identify and support academia projects across Europe where the idea has already been developed long before the entry into force of the Regulation. One such project is in Finland, the JAMK University of Applied Sciences project. This educational institution has long-term training and development experience in renewable energy and biotechnologies in particular. The school has spontaneously refined the idea of akademia. I hope that the Commission will take this model into account for wider European use as one of the academia options.

Mr President, according to the Treaty, European cohesion policy should reduce the economic disparities between Member States, but also the disparities within Member States. How's it been? I have the statistics here and they show that the differences between the Member States have been reduced very significantly. Above all, congratulations to those who have been the most successful in this regard – the Eastern European countries and, to a lesser extent, the Southern European countries – but within the Member States, the differences in development, calculated economically, have increased dramatically. In this respect, cohesion policy has not produced the results that have been sought. If, within the same country, the developmental differences at Nuts 3 level are five times greater between the central region and the peripheral regions, then something is seriously wrong. I hope that, in the new programming period, this shortcoming will be properly addressed. The money is allocated in a way that also helps these weaker regions, not just those centres, some of which - fortunately for them - in Eastern Europe, for example, have been driving past Helsinki, the capital of my own country, in a very brisk way. It's OK, but if at the same time the difference within the country grows enormously, then it's bad. I hope this will be corrected. I hope that there will be more "excellencia" in the idea of cohesion policy, rather than space for another principle.

Mr President, thank you to the rapporteur for a very good report. However, it does not provide an answer to one important question in my view. While the role of cohesion policy is to compensate for differences between Member States, another important role of cohesion policy is to compensate for differences within Member States. Today, there are Member States in the European Union where the differences between the different regions, NUTS level 3 regions, as measured by the PPS – Purchasing Power Standard, which is the right metric – can be five times greater between the central region and a slightly more remote region. These differences have grown, grown and grown over the past few years. Commissioner, this question is for you. In the preparation of the next programming period, should not more radical attention be paid to the fact that the EU's cohesion policy really is what it should be according to its regulations, that is, that it really is able to compensate not only for differences between Member States, but also for differences within Member States. How will this last task be carried out?

I did not quite hear the first part of the question, but I realised that the essence of the question is, however, how the common agricultural policy should be reformed so that farmers throughout the European Union have the same conditions. That is an important question and, in my opinion, it certainly does not happen today. The CAP does not reflect the reality of farming conditions across Europe. When I look around here, when I live here in Strasbourg, there are green fields here. When I go home, there's a meter of snow. The CAP payment per hectare for these fields is roughly the same on the roads in France as in Finland. Here is an example of how the current CAP does not treat all Member States of the European Union fairly and equitably. In any case, the CAP may not recognise the fact that climate change is a big reality and in many ways reflects new types of challenges to the common agricultural policy.

Mr President, Prime Minister, the fundamental pillar of the EU is a fair internal market. They are particularly important for exports to a living country, such as Finland. Fairness means that companies compete in the internal market genuinely and the most competitive ones win. It guarantees productivity and growth for the EU as a whole. The €4 trillion derogations from State aid rules granted by the Commission since autumn 2020 violate this principle. Spending billions to buy large companies in their own country, to support fossil energy, for example – all this is wrong. Thank you, Prime Minister Orpo, for condemning this. That's how I understood. The economic development of the EU is miserable. As there is little increase in labour input from growth factors in the EU, it is now necessary to take a long leap to improve productivity. It takes money. At the time, I was making the famous decision that the EU should reach a level of 3% in research and innovation funding in 2020. We have failed miserably in this. However, the EU spends a total of around EUR 1 trillion on regional and stimulus aid in a few years. There must be a new direction for this money: direction of support for research, innovation and key technologies. And that is far from being a state subsidy that erodes the internal market. Putin's brutal war is a major human catastrophe, but it is also a major material loss for Russia's and Belarus' neighbours. The EU's Interreg programme is good for helping friendly neighbours work together. Now Russia is not friendly and Interreg is not helping the provinces on the EU's eastern border. The EU therefore needs a new external border programme. Such a need is immensely greater and more justified than the EUR 5 billion in support given to external border neighbours as a result of Brexit. An important part of ensuring the EU's strategic autonomy and security of supply is the sustainable use of forests. Nothing other than wood can replace non-renewable raw materials. (The speaker agrees to respond to the blue card)

Mr President, productivity, competitiveness and growth. Behind all these words lies expertise and innovation. In Europe, investing only in innovation has not lived up to the hopes and ambitions we have set ourselves. Many other countries, our competitors, have passed by. When we move around 2%, China, the United States and many countries move between 3% and 5%. For us, both private and public investments are insufficient. The European Union has money. Cohesion funds, stimulus funds and the Social Climate Fund together amount to well over EUR 1 trillion. Their use today, when we look at where they are headed, is anything but excellence. They are used in a way that does not bring competitiveness and productivity to Europe. My hope is that when the next programming period is being prepared for regional development, the use of this money and, above all, of this money and other similar funds, will take excellence and make the contribution to improving quality and competitiveness a key criterion in the allocation of funds.

Mr President, SEPs are not just any patent. They protect technology that is important for standards. There are not many companies in Europe that can do this. Overall, there are very few companies in Europe that can compete in patent competition with the rest of the world. We have a few of them. Among the top 50, there are a few Europeans: Nokia, Ericsson and a few others. We have a few of them. However, if this Commission proposal goes through, it will mean that these Europeans, even the great ones, who are world leaders in both 5G and 6G technology, will be weakened. For those sectors where Europe is still somehow able to cope with the Americans and, above all, with the Chinese, this is a blow that is justified by the fact that the car industry and some other companies would thereby obtain slightly cheaper rights, which are at issue here. I think this show is bad.

Mr President, thank you to the Director-General for his good speech. However, I would be interested to hear your assessment of the impact of the multi-billion euro purchase programme, which is piling up in the ECB's balance sheets and which, I understand, has already been dismantled for several billion euros. What is the impact on price stability and interest rates of this exceptional measure, the €5-6 trillion purchase programme and its current dismantling?

Mr President, even though State aid is not on the agenda for the meeting, I was expecting the Commissioner to have said a word about State aid, which I think is a topical issue. I therefore expected that our common EU internal market would allow state aid exemptions totalling thousands of billions of euros. It undermines a fair internal market. It's easy to say that's what China and the United States do. However, it would be a major mistake if, in the wider context of the WTO, the manipulation of the competitive position of companies with state aid were to become more widespread. It would mean turning a market-driven industry into a state-run one. In the socialist system, this was attempted with little success, as we all know. I understand that de minimis and cohesion subsidies are also needed in the EU, and these subsidies are quite right. However, the EU in particular should invest in research, development and innovation breakthroughs. These subsidies are allowed and fair and benefit everyone. Success comes from allowing the more competitive to win. If the government chooses the winners with its aid, it will not be a good result. State aid is confusing good efforts to promote fair global trade. I therefore hope that the representatives of the EU will also recognise the WTO as a better starting point for a market economy than competition with state aid.

Mr President, a 600 gigawatt power target for solar power in the EU is possible and good. But with whose technology will the Chinese offer cheaper and faster? The European industry is closing factories today. We are faced with a difficult choice. If it can be shown that China's actions are indisputably in breach of WTO rules, import barriers could be justified. But do they work, too, those import barriers? Decades of experience have shown that Chinese technology in this field is not defeated by tariffs, for example. I think I was in the Council at the time to make those decisions. They didn't succeed. Supporting our own production through direct state aid is also wrong. This is destroying the internal market. Genuine competitiveness in this sector, too, can only be achieved through large-scale investments in research and development, not through state subsidies or barriers to imports. A fast-acting option could be for the EU to coordinate with Member States market interventions to procure solar components, solar panels and solar technology for European production, for example, on the basis of security of supply criteria. It could help, at least during the transition period, until competitiveness otherwise improves.

Mr President, I am delighted that there is strong support here for Finland's actions on the eastern border. As Finland's former Minister of the Interior responsible for borders, I am confident that the Finnish Government and Parliament will continue to handle this matter in a correct and responsible manner. Finland's eastern border is also the EU's eastern border with Russia. I therefore hope that Parliament will also deeply understand that keeping the border regions with Russia populated and vibrant is an important part of common European border management. Before the war, there were more than 13 million border crossings per year. Their end – an understandable end – has been a heavy blow to those border counties. I now hope that the visits of the President of the Committee on Regional Affairs, Mr Omarjee, and Commissioner Ferreira to that region will reassure Parliament and also the Commission here that there is a need for strong EU regional policy support for those regions and that border regions in general must be the common target of the common regional policy. The war cannot be the reason for the reduction of regional aid in a region, as is now the case on that eastern border. Rather, war is the reason and justification for the need for more support to secure that vitality and housing.

Mr President, the EU has ambitious climate targets, but we are not currently advancing the green transition in technologies and production as we should. Since 2020, the Commission has granted state aid exemptions amounting to thousands of billions of euros. Much of this aid has been poisonous for a fair internal market. They have gone far beyond net-zero projects. Now this net-zero law defines sectors and strategic projects and their criteria, and now we are on the right path to progress. I am delighted that in committee we succeeded in adding biomaterial production technologies to the scope. I believe that products developed from wood raw materials can replace a large amount of non-renewable raw materials in the future. Money is also needed to implement this legislation. However, there is no need for new funds to take the technological leap in the green transition. We currently have hundreds of billions of euros of unallocated unspent funds in various EU support instruments. I hope that these are now in active use to move net-zero projects forward.

Mr President, the report stresses that a well-functioning internal market is crucial for the competitiveness of the EU and, in particular, for SMEs. Exactly like this. However, the thousands of billions of euros allowed by the Commission to derogate from State aid rules have seriously violated this principle. Exemptions need to be closed and the new rules need to target only critical strategic sectors. The report proposes to cover the stimulus interest expenditure, which could amount to a few to thirty billion euros, from outside the framework with increased membership fees. As in the Member States, I believe that in the EU such additional expenditure should be financed within the expenditure frameworks. I would particularly like to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that there is still an exceptional amount of unspent cohesion funds left over from the previous period, which ended almost three years ago. In addition, as of the beginning of 2021, a new cohesion period or stimulus package started, the mobilisation of which has been extremely slow. There's a lot of money. I hope that the Commission will have the courage to reassess the use of these funds and the possibility of targeting them specifically on research and innovation, which is extremely important for Europe's economic success.

Mr President, underpinning STEP is the EU's concern that we are at risk of falling behind China, the United States and, a little more, other countries, especially in strategic and critical technologies. Our challengers put a lot of effort into these issues. The EU also spent a lot of money on supporting businesses by opening up state aid regulations. Many countries used these opportunities to an unreasonable extent. The EU must now also focus on strategic and critical technologies. There are billions of uncommitted funds in the EU's various financial instruments, apparently around EUR 1 trillion. There are about 1,000 billion euros left unspent. I believe that the Commission's proposal is correct in that it looks at the funds, the financial instruments that have just been mentioned and allocates the billions that are needed there specifically to these strategic and critical sectors. We need a lot of them. I support the Commission's proposal here. On the other hand, I do not support the idea that has been written in this report: a future commitment to the need for a separate, solidarity-based Sovereignty Fund for this purpose. I don't support that.

Mr President, Commissioner Dombrovskis was pleased that you visited China. I think your attitude on your journey was the right one. A full-blown collision between the European Union and China is not good. I agree with U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, she said the same thing. A collision with China is not good for America, nor for the European Union. When Mr von der Leyen spoke here about the state of the EU, he also said that steps would be taken to see how China supports its own businesses. China had already reacted a little earlier to the fact that imports of germanium into Europe, to which China put obstacles. China is also designing permanent magnets, which are key raw materials and products for wind power and electric motors, among other things, as well as their limitations. Did you get the impression? Is it expected that China will apply new such restrictions? And when you spoke about business subsidies, did you remember that the European Commission has already granted EUR 4 000 billion in exemptions from state subsidies in Europe?

Mr President, war is a great tragedy. Ukraine needs to be helped, but the war will also have a major economic impact on those provinces that are on the Russian border. Finland has 1,340 kilometres of common border. We have many provinces for which cooperation with Russia in previous situations was important. The number of border crossings alone peaked at around 14 million per year. You can guess what great economic impact it has had when, as is justified, there is currently no such traffic. What has the Commission done in this situation? The Commission has weakened the Interreg money coming to those regions, those provinces. Totally incomprehensible, totally incomprehensible! When Brexit happened and the UK left, the EU took EUR 5 billion to rectify the situation in those regions that experienced losses. Compared to all that, what is happening now in those border regions is quite different. I hope that already in this mid-term review the Commission will take note of these losses and, above all, correct the inaccuracy of Interreg which has occurred.

Mr President, this report is a good one. Energy dependence on Russia taught us. The damage was huge. However, to this day, this year, 10 billion euros of Putin's energy will still be imported into Europe. We must not repeat this same mistake when it comes to critical raw materials. What's more, we don't even have the moral and ethical right to rely on China and Chinese friends around the world for these purchases. A 10% target is a good start. It must also be produced sustainably. As the permitting process is being reformed and accelerated, it is important that all high environmental standards are strictly adhered to. It is a condition for the people to accept what we are doing now. It is also important that, even when the Commission takes a decision on a strategic project, Member States should have the right to veto, if necessary. That opportunity must be secured.

Mr President, 42.5% is not a matter of pride. The Commission offers us Finns 60%. At the same time, it provides some other countries with 20-30%. The same applies to the reduction of emissions. We are being offered a 50% reduction in emissions, while others are being offered 20-30%. That should not have been the case, Commissioner. At the same time, we are subject to the greatest obligations in terms of restoration, as are sinks. Or, in the case of funding for the Climate Social Fund, we also have greater responsibilities. Commissioner, it is not quite right. Well, we'll get through this, it's not about that, but rightly so. In addition, this RED III further tightens the use of first thinning wood in energy production. No one burns wood when they sell it at a much higher price. There are a few misconceptions about this. Mr President, Commissioner, I hope that when we set targets, we will set them ambitiously and, secondly, a little more evenly across countries and regions.

Mr President, Europe slept in the semiconductor sector for a long time, with Taiwan and Korea, among others, passing by. We in the EU need radically better performance in all parts of the value chain, in education, research, innovation and production. It responds quite well to these challenges. I support it and thank everyone involved in it. However, my concern is about the EU State aid frameworks and their impact in this area. Already now, before Chips Act in force, large EU Member States, including Germany and France, have started to attract large semiconductor companies, investments, to their own countries with huge state aids, without being hindered by state aids. The news reports that, for example, Intel's potential investments in Germany involve state aid of many, many billions of euros. Mr President, Commissioner, I think it is important not to sink into such an auction in this sector, where those with a lot of money thrive and others lose. For Europe, for us, it is important that we have a fair internal market in which genuine competition is what matters.

Mr President, when Covid arrived, the Commission began to recklessly ease the rules on State aid. Countries have applied for €3,500 billion in exemptions. The Commission has granted them, and more than 1 000 billion of this money has been earmarked for projects of any kind. This money, which governments have spent as state aid, would certainly have been needed to finance knowledge, technology and innovation. Now, with the Net-Zero Industry Act, the European Union is trying to improve the situation. It's good like this. This requires state aid, but only to a limited extent. First of all, we are very late. When we used state aid abundantly, the United States built the IRA package. It published its plans last August and enacted the legislation on January 1. We still have work to do. Entry into force of these laws will take months. I do not think that we have been very successful in this regard in improving our competitiveness.

Mr President, we have been living in exceptional times, which is why there has been no need to comply with fiscal rules. Freedoms have been exercised, debt has been lived on and risks have increased. If the camel's back is broken in one country, everyone will be paying. Reforming the rules is urgent. The Commission now considers that there is room for easing the criteria. This is illustrated by many of the flexibilities provided for in the criteria, i.e. the 3% and 60% rules. The Commission's proposal relies heavily on medium-term structural reforms, sustainable investment and flexibility. Extending the adjustment path, which this Commission proposal would bring about, does not necessarily guarantee longer-term debt sustainability, which is why I think this proposal is a bit loose.

Mr President, Putin's brutal war has caused immense suffering and destruction in Ukraine. The burdens of the war extend to Ukraine's neighbours, and they must also be helped. But the effects of the war are also known in Russia's neighbouring countries and their border counties. Finland and Russia share a border of 1,344 kilometres. Before the border was closed, many of our border counties had a great deal of cooperation with Russian regions. Now, of course, all this is over. The economic losses in those regions are large and Interreg programmes are not being implemented in those regions. When Brexit took place, the EU allocated a total of €5 billion to the regions most affected by the UK's departure from the European Union. Should the Commission not now use its crisis response to support these sparsely populated and northern regions, which have been seriously affected by the Russian war?

Mr President, energy consumption is increasingly turning into electricity consumption. At the same time, fortunately, Europe is producing more and more renewable electricity from wind and sun. These forms of production are highly volatile: There are times when there is much, there are times when there is much less. In this situation, we need the development of electricity storage, the technologies with which it can be developed. And these technologies are needed for different storage needs. Needed for short-term storage: Batteries are a good example of this. It takes a little longer: for the needs of industry and also the electricity system. In it, various chemical solutions and storages are a good system. And third types of long-term storage are also needed: it converts electricity into other forms of energy, so that it can be stored almost indefinitely. Examples include these synthetic fuels, e-fuels, x-to-power technologies and the like. What's my message here? It is important that, while public EU support so far has been very strongly focused on battery storage, the short-term storage that these EU funding schemes also support these medium- and longer-term storage schemes. I hope that the Commission will take this wish seriously.

Mr President, the new ETS is the EU's main instrument for reducing emissions and climate action in general. I was the negotiator for the Committee on Industry, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which is why I have a few comments here. The reform will double the current ETS emissions reduction rate, i.e. from 2005 to 2030 by -62%. It rewards clean solutions. It sends a clear message to industry and the energy sector: It is not worth investing in old, emission-free technology. The introduction of an effective CBAM carbon border tax on imports of steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers and electricity is a justified action. It will result in the removal of free allocation of emissions from these sectors in the internal market at the same pace as the CBAM rises. That's right, too. ITRE and subsequently Parliament raised concerns about exports of CBAM sectors, i.e. the need for free allocation of exports to third countries in those CBAM sectors. The result of the trilogue takes into account the needs of the CBAM sectors, but not sufficiently well and strongly in my opinion. That is why, in my view, the risk of carbon leakage must be considered even before the law enters into force and during its implementation.

Mr President, this regulation is a good example of how good objectives and good intentions can be undermined by the fact that the regulation is written in a way that can lead to the interpretations that have been said here. It is interpreted that, for example, if a farmer builds a barn, then the trees felled under that barn would be something that would not meet the requirements of this bill. I think it is high time the Commission's representative here gave his own interpretation, whether this is really the case, as many countries have interpreted it, and many MEPs have interpreted it here. Otherwise, I would say that forest fires cause 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That's a tremendous amount. It accounts for more than 5% of global emissions.